ML20134F702
| ML20134F702 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134F697 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9611070146 | |
| Download: ML20134F702 (3) | |
Text
..
onny y
UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ir WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001
\\...../
l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE,0F NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0Jo9 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-43 DETROIT EDIS0N COMPANY FERMI-2 DOCKET NO. 50-341 1.0 INTRODUCTI0'{
By letter dated September 5, 1996, as supplemented by letters dated October 14, 1996 (proprietary version), October 23, 1996 (non-proprietary version), October 29, and October 31, 1996, the Detroit Edison Company (DECO I
or tN licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 for Fermi-2. The proposed l
amendment would revise TS 2.1.2 to incorporate cycle-specific safety limit minimum critical power ratios (SLMCPRs) for the core that will be loaded for i
Cycle 6.
In addition, the amendment would revise TS 3.4.1.1 to delete the i
specific SL D R number and replace it with a reference to TS 2.1.2.
By letter i
dated October 31, 1996, the licensee transmitted revised TS pages to reflect clarifications to the amendment application. The letters of October 14, 23, 29, and 31, 1996, provided clarifying information and were not outside the scope of the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The clarification adds a footnote to TS 2.1.2 indicating the changes to the TS are applicable only for Cycle 6 operation.
l 2.0 EVALUATION The licensee requested a change to the Fermi Unit 2 Facility Operating License in accordance with the 10 CFR 50.90. The revised TS was proposed as follows:
(1)
Specification 2.1.2 Due to a mixed core of Gell, GE9B and GE6 fuel, the licensee proposed to change the safety limit MCPR from 1.07 to 1.09 for two recirculation loop operation and from 1.08 to 1.11 for single loop operation based on i
the cycle-specific analysis performed by General Electric Company (GE) for Fermi Unit 2 Cycle 6.
Fermi Unit 2 cycle-specific fuel and core parameters were used including the actual core loading, the most l
limiting permissible control blade patterns, the actual bundle parameters, and the cycle exposure range.
The staff has reviewed the proposed TS changes which are based on the i
l analyses performed using Fermi Unit 2 cycle-spec Fic inputs and approved methodologies including GESTAR II (NEDE-240ll-P-A 11, Sections 1.1.5 and 1.2.5) and NED0-10958-A, January 1977, for two loop operation and found them acceptable.
Because the R-factor methodology referenced in 9611070146 961105 PDR ADOCK 05000341 P
-. - - - -. - = -..
=-
j b
j.
i NEDC-24011-P-A-11 is not applicable to the part length Gell fuel, an i
improved R-factor methodology described in NEDC-32505P, "R-Factor Calculation Method for Gell, GE12 and GE13 Fuel", November 1995, was used. The improved R-factor calculation method uses the same j
NRC-approved equation stated in GESTAR (NEDE-24011-P-A) with the correction factors to account for the peaking factor effects due to the part-length-rod design. The staff has reviewed the R-factor calculation i
method for Gell and finds it acceptable for application to the Gell fuel in Fermi Unit 2.
A telephone conference was held on October 3,1996, with Detroit Edison Company to clarify the cycle-specific analyses with respect to the cause of a 0.02 increase above the generic SLMCPR of 1.07 i
for Gell fuel and the search procedure for variations of projected control blade patterns. The responses to this conference call are documented in a letter dated October 14, :l996, from Detroit Edison Company to USNRC.
(2) Action Statement 3.4.1.1.a.1.d The SLMCPR values are revised to refer to TS 2.1.2.
This revision is i
acceptable since TS 2.1.2 includes the approved values for MCPR for j
single loop operation.
Based on our review, we conclude that the change to the SLMCPR TS 'is acceptable gnly for the Fermi Unit 2 Cycle 6 operation since the changes are j
analyzed based on the NRC-approved methodology using Fermi Unit 2 cycle-specific inputs which will ensure that operation will be consistent with applicable design bases limits.
i 4
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
i In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Michigan State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official l
had no comments.
i
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
t l
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no i
significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, j
of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no
~
significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the 1
i amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR 50342). Accordingly, the amendment j
meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10.CFR 4
51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance 4
of the amendment.
i j
5 i
1
\\
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Principal Contributor: Tai Huang Date:
November 5, 1996 i
l I
l 4
l
-, -